Related
Greetings,
I am trying to decide between C and C++ for my robot. I am a 5+ year veteran of Visual Basic.NET, however I'm going with Linux (Ubuntu) on this robot, and there is a compatibility problem between Linux and the .NET Framework. I want to stick with whichever language I choose for all of my projects, so I want to make sure that I choose the most appropriate one for the task.
For reference, I will describe my current robot in progress and what I am going to do with it. I am in the process of building a full-sized R4 Astromech (yep, I'm one of those guys). I have incorporated a PC motherboard with an Intel Core 2 2.1 GHz processor, 1 GB RAM. I will be using a scratch-built parallel interface card to control the drive motors, head motor, as well as a secondary parallel interface card (going to a second parallel port) which all of the sensors (IR, Ultrasonic Ranging, Visual Recognition via webcam, etc.) will be going to. Commands will be given using speech recognition (currently have a VB.NET scratch-built recognition program that I will be adapting to the new language).
Given the specifications and desired goals listed above, would I be better off with C or C++? I greatly appreciate any suggestions that you might have.
Thanks!
Thaskalas
What do you mean by a compatibility problem? Have you looked at Mono? It's an open-source implementation of the .NET libraries. It's geared toward C# not VB.NET but if you're more comfortable in a .NET environment use that. Speed isn't really an issue here as a Core2Duo is plenty fast for what you need to do.
If Mono won't work for you, I'd recommend C++. There are a lot more libraries out there for C++ (or at least, I am familiar with more, e.g. Boost), which can use most C libraries too. There's no real speed penalty for using C++. While using C wouldn't be bad per-se, C++ has some benefits and no drawbacks, so it's probably the better choice.
I would recommend using ROS. It will let you get started with a sophisticated Inter-Process Communications manager, as well as a large library of sophisticated robotics code, including multiple implementations of SLAM and other critical robotics algorithms. ROS also lets you program in multiple languages, including C, C++, and Python, so you aren't stuck with one language or another down the road.
I would also recommend C++ and ROS. In our company we're migrating to it, because there's so many people working on it, expanding it, and adding lots of cool features.
With this, you can forget about implementing most of the basic low-level stuff and start working on what you intend to research.
It's really easy to set up and start developing.
Since you're running Linux on it, I'd recommend a split approach, where you do the lower-level (device interface, where you may need fast performance) stuff in C (or C++), and the higher level stuff in a modern language like C# (using Mono) or Java, or even Python.
Python especially is hugely expressive, has a large set of libraries, and has a pretty straightforward C interface.
Writing your high-level control stuff in a low-level language like C/C++ will get old fast (IMHO). Robots should be fun!
Have you considered D? It's a fairly new language, is compiled to native code and can link directly to C. (The entire C standard library is even available from D, and bindings to the POSIX API are included in the standard library.) Basically all you need to do to use any C library from D is compile it with a C compiler and translate the function prototypes, constant declarations, etc. in the header file.
D is low-level enough that an experimental kernel is written in it, but has modern features like garbage collection (though manual memory management is still permitted), builtin strings and arrays, and more advanced/easier to use template metaprogramming facilities than C++. The biggest disadvantage is lack of a mature toolchain and libraries for enterprise-y things, but for your purposes that probably doesn't matter. BTW, if you need to do a bunch of matrix manipulation and stuff, there's the SciD project, which provides nice templated wrappers over LAPACK and BLAS.
Use C++. You have the space. You can use it "as a better C" to start with.
C++ is a bigger tool bag; why would you not want that!? You need not use all the tools, but with C you'd have no choice. Most importantly with C++ you have the choice of using both C and C++ third-party libraries.
I have been using C++ for a while now and I began to get interested in lower level system programming like drivers and stuff. Even some kind of primitive operating system could be very interesting project!
I have no clue where I could start. Are there any not-too-challenging things I could get started with and are there anything about C++ I should try to avoid like exceptions in performance critical code?
My current OS is Windows 7 if that matters much.
Writing Windows device drivers in C++ isn't impossible, there are not many CRT functions that you could use to get you into trouble. The new operator is unusable for example, you don't have to fear a std::bad_alloc. Unless you replace it, that cuts out a rather large swath of standard C++ library classes.
But that's not really the point of a device driver, it is rather important that you make it as small as possible. C++ pays off when you write complex code. You explicitly do not want to write complex code in a device driver. Debugging it is redrum.
Linus really likes C in the kernel. There's a good reason for that.
C++ doesn't provide quite all of the tools you will need to actually implement a full operating system in it. There are a few machine specific things that cannot be done in c++. These things are handling and raising interrupts, controlling the MMU, controlling access to supervisor cpu instructions, and a handful of other small odds and ends.
Fortunately, these things are few enough that they can be written in assembly language accessed from C++.
Have a look at osdev.org (lots of questions that will pop into your mind when considering developing your own OS are answered here).
I would strongly suggest you start by hacking existing open source device-drivers and kernels, which you can really only do in Linux or *BSD. The experience will also give you a good sense of whether you're cut out for this kind of programming.
I have heard the recently open sourced Symbian OS is written using C and C++. Not sure which parts of it are done with C++ as I have not read the code base. Consider looking into it.
Kerneltrap.org has some very good discussions about why the Linux kernel does not have C++ in its code base. Consider reading that as well.
Symbian OS is written in a variant of C++. Of course, there's assembly code for low-level things, but that is all wrapped up. You cannot use exceptions, and for real-time drivers you cannot do normal things like dynamic memory allocation, not even in C.
I recommend C Programming Language and assembler. I'm not sure if it's possible to low-level much with C++.
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 4 years ago.
Improve this question
I'm planning to code a library that should be usable by a large number of people in on a wide spectrum of platforms. What do I have to consider to design it right? To make this questions more specific, there are four "subquestions" at the end.
Choice of language
Considering all the known requirements and details, I concluded that a library written in C or C++ was the way to go. I think the primary usage of my library will be in programs written in C, C++ and Java SE, but I can also think of reasons to use it from Java ME, PHP, .NET, Objective C, Python, Ruby, bash scrips, etc... Maybe I cannot target all of them, but if it's possible, I'll do it.
Requirements
It would be to much to describe the full purpose of my library here, but there are some aspects that might be important to this question:
The library itself will start out small, but definitely will grow to enormous complexity, so it is not an option to maintain several versions in parallel.
Most of the complexity will be hidden inside the library, though
The library will construct an object graph that is used heavily inside. Some clients of the library will only be interested in specific attributes of specific objects, while other clients must traverse the object graph in some way
Clients may change the objects, and the library must be notified thereof
The library may change the objects, and the client must be notified thereof, if it already has a handle to that object
The library must be multi-threaded, because it will maintain network connections to several other hosts
While some requests to the library may be handled synchronously, many of them will take too long and must be processed in the background, and notify the client on success (or failure)
Of course, answers are welcome no matter if they address my specific requirements, or if they answer the question in a general way that matters to a wider audience!
My assumptions, so far
So here are some of my assumptions and conclusions, which I gathered in the past months:
Internally I can use whatever I want, e.g. C++ with operator overloading, multiple inheritance, template meta programming... as long as there is a portable compiler which handles it (think of gcc / g++)
But my interface has to be a clean C interface that does not involve name mangling
Also, I think my interface should only consist of functions, with basic/primitive data types (and maybe pointers) passed as parameters and return values
If I use pointers, I think I should only use them to pass them back to the library, not to operate directly on the referenced memory
For usage in a C++ application, I might also offer an object oriented interface (Which is also prone to name mangling, so the App must either use the same compiler, or include the library in source form)
Is this also true for usage in C# ?
For usage in Java SE / Java EE, the Java native interface (JNI) applies. I have some basic knowledge about it, but I should definitely double check it.
Not all client languages handle multithreading well, so there should be a single thread talking to the client
For usage on Java ME, there is no such thing as JNI, but I might go with Nested VM
For usage in Bash scripts, there must be an executable with a command line interface
For the other client languages, I have no idea
For most client languages, it would be nice to have kind of an adapter interface written in that language. I think there are tools to automatically generate this for Java and some others
For object oriented languages, it might be possible to create an object oriented adapter which hides the fact that the interface to the library is function based - but I don't know if its worth the effort
Possible subquestions
is this possible with manageable effort, or is it just too much portability?
are there any good books / websites about this kind of design criteria?
are any of my assumptions wrong?
which open source libraries are worth studying to learn from their design / interface / souce?
meta: This question is rather long, do you see any way to split it into several smaller ones? (If you reply to this, do it as a comment, not as an answer)
Mostly correct. Straight procedural interface is the best. (which is not entirely the same as C btw(**), but close enough)
I interface DLLs a lot(*), both open source and commercial, so here are some points that I remember from daily practice, note that these are more recommended areas to research, and not cardinal truths:
Watch out for decoration and similar "minor" mangling schemes, specially if you use a MS compiler. Most notably the stdcall convention sometimes leads to decoration generation for VB's sake (decoration is stuff like #6 after the function symbol name)
Not all compilers can actually layout all kinds of structures:
so avoid overusing unions.
avoid bitpacking
and preferably pack the records for 32-bit x86. While theoretically slower, at least all compilers can access packed records afaik, and the official alignment requirements have changed over time as the architecture evolved
On Windows use stdcall. This is the default for Windows DLLs. Avoid fastcall, it is not entirely standarized (specially how small records are passed)
Some tips to make automated header translation easier:
macros are hard to autoconvert due to their untypeness. Avoid them, use functions
Define separate types for each pointer types, and don't use composite types (xtype **) in function declarations.
follow the "define before use" mantra as much as possible, this will avoid users that translate headers to rearrange them if their language in general requires defining before use, and makes it easier for one-pass parsers to translate them. Or if they need context info to auto translate.
Don't expose more than necessary. Leave handle types opague if possible. It will only cause versioning troubles later.
Do not return structured types like records/structs or arrays as returntype of functions.
always have a version check function (easier to make a distinction).
be careful with enums and boolean. Other languages might have slightly different assumptions. You can use them, but document well how they behave and how large they are. Also think ahead, and make sure that enums don't become larger if you add a few fields, break the interface. (e.g. on Delphi/pascal by default booleans are 0 or 1, and other values are undefined. There are special types for C-like booleans (byte,16-bit or 32-bit word size, though they were originally introduced for COM, not C interfacing))
I prefer stringtypes that are pointer to char + length as separate field (COM also does this). Preferably not having to rely on zero terminated. This is not just because of security (overflow) reasons, but also because it is easier/cheaper to interface them to Delphi native types that way.
Memory always create the API in a way that encourages a total separation of memory management. IOW don't assume anything about memory management. This means that all structures in your lib are allocated via your own memory manager, and if a function passes a struct to you, copy it instead of storing a pointer made with the "clients" memory management. Because you will sooner or later accidentally call free or realloc on it :-)
(implementation language, not interface), be reluctant to change the coprocessor exception mask. Some languages change this as part of conforming to their standards floating point error(exception-)handling.
Always pair a callbacks with an user configurable context. This can be used by the user to give the the callback state without defining global variables. (like e.g. an object instance)
be careful with the coprocessor status word. It might be changed by others and break your code, and if you change it, other code might stop working. The status word is generally not saved/restored as part of calling conventions. At least not in practice.
don't use C style varargs parameters. Not all languages allow variable number of parameters in an unsafe way
(*) Delphi programmer by day, a job that involves interfacing a lot of hardware and thus translating vendor SDK headers. By night Free Pascal developer, in charge of, among others, the Windows headers.
(**)
This is because what "C" means binary is still dependant on the used C compiler, specially if there is no real universal system ABI. Think of stuff like:
C adding an underscore prefix on some binary formats (a.out, Coff?)
sometimes different C compilers have different opinions on what to do with small structures passed by value. Officially they shouldn't support it at all afaik, but most do.
structure packing sometimes varies, as do details of calling conventions (like skipping
integer registers or not if a parameter is registerable in a FPU register)
===== automated header conversions ====
While I don't know SWIG that well, I know and use some delphi specific header tools( h2pas, Darth/headconv etc).
However I never use them in fully automatic mode, since more often then not the output sucks. Comments change line or are stripped, and formatting is not retained.
I usually make a small script (in Pascal, but you can use anything with decent string support) that splits a header up, and then try a tool on relatively homogeneous parts (e.g. only structures, or only defines etc).
Then I check if I like the automated conversion output, and either use it, or try to make a specific converter myself. Since it is for a subset (like only structures) it is often way easier than making a complete header converter. Of course it depends a bit what my target is. (nice, readable headers or quick and dirty). At each step I might do a few substitutions (with sed or an editor).
The most complicated scheme I did for Winapi commctrl and ActiveX/comctl headers. There I combined IDL and the C header (IDL for the interfaces, which are a bunch of unparsable macros in C, the C header for the rest), and managed to get the macros typed for about 80% (by propogating the typecasts in sendmessage macros back to the macro declaration, with reasonable (wparam,lparam,lresult) defaults)
The semi automated way has the disadvantage that the order of declarations is different (e.g. first constants, then structures then function declarations), which sometimes makes maintenance a pain. I therefore always keep the original headers/sdk to compare with.
The Jedi winapi conversion project might have more info, they translated about half of the windows headers to Delphi, and thus have enormous experience.
I don't know but if it's for Windows then you might try either a straight C-like API (similar to the WINAPI), or packaging your code as a COM component: because I'd guess that programming languages might want to be able to invoke the Windows API, and/or use COM objects.
Regarding automatic wrapper generation, consider using SWIG. For Java, it will do all the JNI work. Also, it is able to translate complex OO-C++-interfaces properly (provided you follow some basic guidelines, i.e. no nested classes, no over-use of templates, plus the ones mentioned by Marco van de Voort).
Think C, nothing else. C is one of the most popular programming languages. It is widely used on many different software platforms, and there are few computer architectures for which a C compiler does not exist. All popular high-level languages provide an interface to C. That makes your library accessible from almost all platforms in existence. Don't worry too much about providing an Object Oriented interface. Once you have the library done in C, OOP, functional or any other style interface can be created in appropriate client languages. No other systems programming language will give you C's flexibility and potability.
NestedVM I think is going to be slower than pure Java because of the array bounds checking on the int[][] that represents the MIPS virtual machine memory. It is such a good concept but might not perform well enough right now (until phone manufacturers add NestedVM support (if they do!), most stuff is going to be SLOW for now, n'est-ce pas)? Whilst it may be able to unpack JPEGs without error, speed is of no small concern! :)
Nothing else in what you've written sticks out, which isn't to say that it's right or wrong! The principles sound (mainly just listening to choice of words and language to be honest) like roughly standard best practice but I haven't thought through the details of everything you've said. As you said yourself, this really ought to be several questions. But of course doing this kind of thing is not automatically easy just because you're fixed on perhaps a slightly different architecture to the last code base you've worked on...! ;)
My thoughts:
All your comments on C interface compatibility sound sensible to me, pretty much best practice except you don't seem to properly address memory management policy - some sentences a bit ambiguous/vague/wrong-sounding. The design of the memory management will be to a large extent determined by the access patterns made in your application, rather than the functionality per se. I suiggest you study others' attempts at making portable interfaces like the standard ANSI C API, Unix API, Win32 API, Cocoa, J2SE, etc carefully.
If it was me, I'd write the library in a carefully chosen subset of the common elements of regular Java and Davlik virtual machine Java and also write my own custom parser that translates the code to C for platforms that support C, which would of course be most of them. I would suggest that if you restrict yourself to data types of various size ints, bools, Strings, Dictionaries and Arrays and make careful use of them that will help in cross-platform issues without affecting performance much most of the time.
your assumptions seem ok, but i see trouble ahead, much of which you have already spotted in your assumptions.
As you said, you can't really export c++ classes and methods, you will need to provide a function based c interface. What ever facade you build around that, it will remain a function based interface at heart.
The basic problem i see with that is that people choose a specific language and its runtime because their way of thinking (functional or object oriented) or the problem they address (web programming, database,...) corresponds to that language in some way or other.
A library implemented in c will probably never feel like the libraries they are used to, unless they program in c themselves.
Personally, I would always prefer a library that "feels like python" when I use python, and one that feels like java when I do Java EE, even though I know c and c++.
So your effort might be of little actual use (other than your gain in experience), because people will probably want to stick with their mindset, and rather re-implement the functionality than use a library that does the job, but does not fit.
I also fear the desired portability will seriously hamper development. Just think of the infinite build settings needed, and tests for that. I have worked on a project that tried to maintain compatibility for 5 operating systems (all posix-like, but still) and about 10 compilers, the builds were a nightmare to test and maintain.
Give it an XML interface, whether passed as a parameter and return value or as files through a command-line invocation. This may not seem as direct as a normal function interface, but is the most practical way to access an executable from, e.g., Java.
I am writing a program, more specifically a bootloader, for an embedded system. I am going to use a C library to interact with some of the hardware components and I have the choice of writing it either in C or C++. Is there any reason I should choose one over the other? I do not need the object oriented features of C++ but it does have a stronger type system. Could it have other language features that would make the program more robust? I know some people avoid C++ because it can (but not always) generate large firmware images.
This isn't a particularly straightforward question to answer. It depends on a number of factors including:
How you prefer to layout your code.
Whether there's a C++ compiler available for your target (and any other targets you may wish to use the bootloader on).
How critical the code size is for your application (we're talking about 10% extra maybe, not MB as suggested by another answer).
Personally, I really like classes as a way of laying out my code. Even when writing C code, I'll tend to keep everything in modular files with file-scope static functions "simulating" member functions and (a few) file-scope static variables to "simulate" member variables. Having said that, most of my existing embedded projects (all of which are relatively small scale, up to a maximum of 128kB flash including bootloader, but usually less) have tended to be written in C. Now that I have a C++ compiler though, I'm certainly considering moving to C++.
There are considerable benefits to C++ from simply using references, overloading and templates, even if you don't go as far as classes. Certainly, I'd stop short of using a lot of more advanced features, including the use of dynamic memory allocation (new). Then again, I'd avoid dynamic memory allocation (malloc etc) in embedded C as well if possible.
If you have a C++ compiler (even if it's only g++), it is worth running your code through it just for the additional type checking so that you can reduce the number of problems in your code. The C++ compiler can pick up on a few things that even static analysis tools won't spot.
For a good discussion on many invalid reasons people reject C++, see Dan Saks' article on Embedded.com.
For a boot-loader the obvious choice is C, especially on an embedded system. The generated code will need to be close to the metal, and very easy to debug, likely by dropping into assembly, which quickly becomes difficult without care in C++. Also C tool-chains are far more ubiquitous than C++ tool-chains, allowing your boot-loader to be used on more platforms. Lastly, generated binaries are typically smaller, and use less memory when written C style.
If you don't need to use Object Orientation, use C. Simple choice there. Its simpler and easier, whilst accomplishing the same task.
Some die hards will disagree, but OO is what makes C++ > C, and vice versa in a lot of circumstances.
I would use C unless there is a specific reason to use C++. For a Bootloader you are not really going to need OO.
Use the simplest tool that will accomplish the job.
Write programs in C is not the same as writing it in C++. If you know how to do it only in C++, then your choice is C++. For writing bootloader it will be better to minimize code, so you probably will have to disable standard C++ library. If you know how to write in C then you should use C — it is more common choice for such kind of tasks.
Most of the previous answers assume that your bootloader is small and simple which is typically the case; however, if it becomes more complex (i.e. you need to be able to load from an Ethernet port, a USB port, or a serial port...you need to validate the code that is being loaded before you wipe out your existing code, etc.) you may want to consider C++.
I have also found that the bootloader and the application typically share some amount of common code so you may also want to consider using the same language as your application to facilitate the code sharing.
The C language is substantially easier to parse than C++. This means a program that is both valid C and valid C++ will compile faster as a C program. Probably not a major concern, but it is just another reason why C++ is probably overkill.
Go with C++ and objchoose what language features you need. You still have full control of the output object code as long as you understand the C++ abstractions that you're using.
Use of OO can still run well if you avoid the use of virtual functions. Avoid immutable object types that require a lot of copying in order to pass values, like std::string. But, you can still use features like templates without any real impact on runtime performance.
Use C with µClibc. It will make your code simpler and reduce its footprint. Can be found in: www.uclibc.org.
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
We don’t allow questions seeking recommendations for books, tools, software libraries, and more. You can edit the question so it can be answered with facts and citations.
Closed 6 years ago.
Improve this question
I'm doing a Windows Application the uses lots of charts. Its practically a dataviewer. I started doing Matlab, because its easier, but I realized it's too slow. I wanted to change to another language. Somebody recommended me Visual C++ or Java. But Im not sure. What language should I use??
In my opinion the speed gain from going to another "faster" language is not as much as refining your algorithm.
The "problem" with MATLAB is that it allows you to do some nasty things, such as resizing your matrix in a tight loop. You should really try to pinpoint your bottlenecks using the following command:
profile on
... run your program
profile off
profile report
This will give you nice information about which function takes how long to execute and which line creates the biggest bottleneck. You can also see how many times a function is called and a M-Lint Code Check Report is included.
These measurements and hints can show you the bottlenecks of your algorithm. if your sure there isn't a way to reduce the callcount/speed of a function using a smarter algorithm. Such as do I really need that big 2d matrix where a smart vector would be large enough, or if I found a artifact, why would I still continue searching for artifacts. You could write the functions you're experiencing the most performance problems with in c/c++ and use it as a function in matlab. You can get a big speedup out of correctly choosing which functions to implement in c/c++. There is an amount of overhead with calling a c/c++ function from MATLAB, or more correctly there is a overhead in c/c++ to get the data from MATLAB, so a function which is called 10000 times will not be the best to implement in c/c++, you'd be better of with the function higher up the callstack.
It depends on what your requirements are.
The advantage of using matlab is that it's strong in numerical calculations. If you don't need that, then there is no advantage to using matlab. In this case, all those languages are okay, and many others (Python, C#, ...) as well. It depends on which language you are most comfortable with.
If you do want the advantages of matlab then:
Try optimizing in matlab. Most optimization techniques are language independent.
There are tools to translate matlab to C automatically. You can then try to compile with all optimizations on. I seriously doubt this will help much, however, especially considering the GUI part.
First and foremost, as other answers have mentioned, you need to profile your code to find out where the bottleneck is. I would check out Doug Hull's blog at The MathWorks, specifically this entry about using the profiler. This will help you find out where all the work is being done in your code.
If the source of the slowdown is associated with data processing, there may be a number of ways to speed things up (vectorizing, writing a mex file, etc.).
If the source of the slowdown is your GUI, this may be even easier to solve. There are a number of blog posts, both from Doug and other MathWorkers, which I've seen that deal with GUI design. There have also been a few questions on SO dealing with it (here's one). If you're dealing with displaying very large data sets, this submission from Jiro Doke on The MathWorks File Exchange may help speed things up.
It's hard to give you more specific advice since I don't know how you are designing your GUI, but if that turns out to be the bottleneck in displaying your data there are many resources to turn to for improving its speed before you go through the hassle of switching to a whole other language.
Don't forget that you can create functions in C++ that can be called from Matlab. And TADA, you have access to both environments !
I would use C#. It is easier than C++ and integrates well with the Windows platform. Just find a free graphing library for it and you're good to go.
There are plenty of other options depending on your preference of language. Eg. Qt with Python or C++.
As far as I know, the most common methodology is to first do the proof of concept or just the main algorithm on Matlab, because of its ease of use and convenience for math calculations, and after that to translate it to a "real" programming language in order to improve the performance. Usually C or C++ act as the "real" language, but in your case, aiming to do a Windows application, perhaps C# will be the best option.
I found that GUI programming in MATLAB can get really nasty if your application gets more complex. BTW MATLAB can also be called from Java easily (and vice versa, current versions basically provide an interactive Java console).
Just as a side note, if you still need the math power of Matlab, you may want to check out Scilab. It's open-source and free, and it has examples of how it can be integrated with other C# or C++. I have created projects on which Scilab was running in the background to perform all the data math operations; and displaying them with C#'s ZedGraph library. Worked like magic!
I suggest you using Java and the JFreeChart (http://www.jfree.org/jfreechart/) library. I found very easy (and fast) developing applications with a lot of charts of different typologies. If you don't need particularly fast performances, you can use Java. I suppose that there are similar libraries for C#, but I'm not sure.
An alternative to Matlab and Scilab is another free software: Octave.
I don't know about Scilab, but Octave syntax is nearly the same as matlab so you can import code with minimal effort.
If you need fancy toolboxes though, Scilab and Octave might let you down, so check this.
You can execute Octave functions in a C++ program:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Octave
I do not think that you can call your own m-files functions from your C++ program though. In the past, the Matlab compiler would let users run matlab programs without installing Matlab, but not without installing a huge library (250 MB if I remember correctly). Nevermind if your Matlab program took 20 kB, you had to distribute the huge library.
Please someone edit/comment on the situation today!
It has been a while since I used the GUI "ability" of Matlab, but back then (2005) I found it awful. Ugly, hard to use, very hard to maintain, dependent on user settings of windows parameters.
Please comment or edit on that too, they may have made progress!
If they have not, I believe that Matlab is NOT the way to go for a program that you want to deliver to anyone.
If you can use Visual Studio for doing your GUI, do that. I second the earlier opinions: go with what you're comfortable with.
If you need the Matlab functions, go with what you're comfortable with, that supports Matlab libraries.
First of all Visual C++ is not a language is an IDE for developing applications.
Second... Which languages do you know? You can have several options. Take a look to:
C++ + Qt (Mine preferred option, powerful and easy to understand)
C# + .NET or WPF
Java
If you can tell more information we could find a language that matches your needs.